Q:A teacher decided to challenge 10 of her students to do their mathematics work without a calculator or computer for three months, while the rest of her class was able to use whatever tools they had at their disposal. She discovered that the 10 students' scores improved on their homework assignments and their exams. On the basis of this experiment the teacher determined that students perform better when forced to complete their work manually rather than depending on machines.

Which of the following would, if valid, most weaken the reasoning above?

A) The 10 students were performing poorly in the teacher's course before the experiment.B) The 10 students were being tutored by other students who did have the advantage of a calculator or computerC) The 10 students happened to be the best students at mathematics in the class.D) During the three months of the experiment, the class studied mathematics that only the 10 students had studied previously.E) The teacher coached the students on how to do their homework without the help of a calculator or computer.

For DDO discussion:Explain why you chose your answer and not the next best. I know what the listed answer is, but I got it wrong and wanted to hear how others approached the responses. Also, if you want to make it feel like an exam question, give yourself only ~50 seconds to read and answer the question.

I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 2/6/2015 3:51:51 PM, ben2974 wrote:Q:A teacher decided to challenge 10 of her students to do their mathematics work without a calculator or computer for three months, while the rest of her class was able to use whatever tools they had at their disposal. She discovered that the 10 students' scores improved on their homework assignments and their exams. On the basis of this experiment the teacher determined that students perform better when forced to complete their work manually rather than depending on machines.

Which of the following would, if valid, most weaken the reasoning above?

A) The 10 students were performing poorly in the teacher's course before the experiment.B) The 10 students were being tutored by other students who did have the advantage of a calculator or computerC) The 10 students happened to be the best students at mathematics in the class.D) During the three months of the experiment, the class studied mathematics that only the 10 students had studied previously.E) The teacher coached the students on how to do their homework without the help of a calculator or computer.

For DDO discussion:Explain why you chose your answer and not the next best. I know what the listed answer is, but I got it wrong and wanted to hear how others approached the responses. Also, if you want to make it feel like an exam question, give yourself only ~50 seconds to read and answer the question.

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

Anyway Wylted is right. The answer is D. I chose E.

But after reading it over I can definitely understand why it would be D. Wylted interpreted the question real well. To find the answer, looking for the greatest "advantage" would be key. Makes sense.

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

Anyway Wylted is right. The answer is D. I chose E.

LOL..

Yeah right. She just happened by chance to choose the very ten students who had previously studied that material to do her experiment with.

What were the odds in that happening?

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

Anyway Wylted is right. The answer is D. I chose E.

LOL..

Yeah right. She just happened by chance to choose the very ten students who had previously studied that material to do her experiment with.

What were the odds in that happening?

100%. All choices are hypotheticals. As the questions implies (with the word "valid"), you're supposed to assume a case for each choice. Then, assess and compare.

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

Anyway Wylted is right. The answer is D. I chose E.

LOL..

Yeah right. She just happened by chance to choose the very ten students who had previously studied that material to do her experiment with.

What were the odds in that happening?

100%. All choices are hypotheticals. As the questions implies (with the word "valid"), you're supposed to assume a case for each choice. Then, assess and compare.

All choices being equally valid or not, I still stand by my earlier answer and for the reasons I gave.

"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.

Anyway Wylted is right. The answer is D. I chose E.

LOL..

Yeah right. She just happened by chance to choose the very ten students who had previously studied that material to do her experiment with.

What were the odds in that happening?

100%. All choices are hypotheticals. As the questions implies (with the word "valid"), you're supposed to assume a case for each choice. Then, assess and compare.

All choices being equally valid or not, I still stand by my earlier answer and for the reasons I gave.

At 2/6/2015 7:00:40 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:I chose answer "B" because it has the most direct correlation with the asserted premise.

The premise is that doing the work without technical aids will improve skills of one group over another. That premise is completely destroyed when it is found out that the group who was supposed to be without the tools was actually aided by the group who did have the use of those tools.

Wouldn't you think that if the 10 students had been getting "tutored" by the other students, that they would only then be able to perform as well as those who have had access to computers/calculators the whole time? In reality if they're getting "tutored" by the rest of their classmates using calculators/computers, then they wouldn't really be getting a treatment to begin with (i.e., struggling with the material manually).

Your question was a multiple choice. I made my selection and I explained why. I didn't realize I was signing on for a debate about it. There isn't enough data to answer your questions in your response about the potential performance of the tutored students.